Coffee Talk #155: Worst Addition to Gaming in the Last Five Years?

Yesterday we had a fun discussion about the best thing to happen to gaming in the last five years. Today I want to talk about the worst thing. While EA’s Online Pass has been making the news lately, I’m sure there are worse things we can think of, right?

Welcome to Coffee Talk! Let’s start off the day by discussing whatever is on your (nerd chic) mind. Every morning I’ll kick off a discussion and I’m counting on you to participate in it. If you’re not feelin’ my topic, feel free to start a chat with your fellow readers and see where it takes you. Whether you’re talking about videogames, Drogba missing the World Cup with a broken arm, Miley Cyrus getting in touch with her lesbian side, or Rasheed Wallace being the only Celtic thay played last night, Coffee Talk is the place to do it.

Yesterday we had a fun discussion about the best thing to happen to gaming in the last five years. Today I want to talk about the worst thing. While EA’s Online Pass has been making the news lately, I’m sure there are worse things we can think of, right?

I’m actually having a hard time thinking about the “worst” thing. Perhaps I’m a generally positive person (at least, when it comes to this business). Some people think Bobby Kotick is gaming’s anti-Christ, but I love him simply for giving me so many things to write about. A lot of people hate DRM, but I’m not much of a PC gamer anymore so the problem doesn’t bother me. I guess the thing that bugs me the most is that game creators still aren’t recognized for their awesome works. Things have gotten a little better, but this business is still more about the publisher than it is the developer, sadly.

Now it’s your turn! What’s the worst thing about the last five years of gaming?

Author: RPadTV

44 thoughts on “Coffee Talk #155: Worst Addition to Gaming in the Last Five Years?”

  1. DLC. Can't use it unless it can phone home, cheapens the value of a $60 title and the fact that the pubs think that 5-15 bucks here and there isn't hurting anyone.

    Other that than I have to include Motion controls.

  2. Fudge this guy, Smart Guy lol. I swear man I have to hit the refresh button faster lol. Once again I will agree with SG but in reverse. I hate motion controls. Just flat out hate it. DLC is awesome but not being able to resell, share, etc is the drawback for me.

  3. I think DRM is still a pretty big issue even if you aren't really a PC game player so much anymore. When I was having problems with the internet in my apartment I couldn't play some of the XBLA games I had bought because it didn't recognize that they were purchased and not trial games without the internet connection. Also, although the whole sports pass thing with EA is relatively new, I would add that to the list as well. Anytime when there is a higher cost for something that is already given to me for free now is a tragedy to the gaming industry. Yes they are a business who needs to make their money, but they also have a responsibility to the consumers.

  4. @BB

    Haha. They are on par really the more I think on it.

    I'd like to add one more thing though….yearly entries in a series. Madden, CoD, etc.

  5. @ NBA Finals

    (this is a copy and paste from this weeks "what are you playing this weekend?")

    Man the Celtics gave about 60-70% effort the whole game, it was as if they were not in a championship series. The Lakers on the other hand looked awesome and quite honestly I think they gave about 80-90% effort. Against the Celtics they can play slightly better but not by much. I truly think the Celts were testing the waters seeing as most of the team had a sub par night (not making excuses for shitty playing) and seeing what the Lakers are truly capable of. If both teams gave 90% the Celtics would win every time because of they have the superior defense, the Lakers have length and Kobe. Speaking of that man he is unstoppable when he is in the zone which makes me upset but what can we do but watch him make shot after shot. The Celts bench is more physical than the Lakers bench as well. I got the Celts in 7.

  6. @Ray

    Sports yes…but it just seems that this gen has produced more yearly entries than ever before.

  7. DLC. I was happy with the formula of creating a complete game and then if people wanted more a sequel would be made adding more things. I understand that DLC may enhance gameplay or story line but it makes the game more expensive. I think smartguy's example with mw2 was good. The game costs $60 plus 2 – $15 DLC map packs. you're looking at $90. there's no way this game is worth $90, especially when the DLC doesn't add anything to the SP campaign just MP aspect.

    @Big Blak

    I hope you're right. I don't want the Lakers to win this year. Last year i was okay with it but this year i'm not.

  8. @ Tokz

    I hope I'm right too lol. Doc Rivers is sneaky as hell and I would not put it past him. Did you hear about how the Celts stashed a couple Gs in the visitor locker room. He collected $100 from every person on the Celts staff and hid it in the Staples Center in February and said if you want your money back you will have to get it in June during the finals. AWESOME!!!

  9. You think Phil Jackson keeps all these rings in a sock drawer? Perhaps 2 of them. Honestly, does he even care? I guess he does because he can't possibly be in it for the money anymore.

  10. @Big Blak

    Yeah i just read about it on yahoo. I hope Eddie House got an IOU for his benjamin. Not like he needs it.

  11. Worst Ever – Social Gaming like Facebook crap

    Really Bad – Motion Controls or I should say half-assed motion controls.

    Could Do Without – Micromanaging a character like having to sleep in game or eat or socialize

  12. @Big Blak

    I have a fondness for that guy. I think it's because my favorite house DJ growing up was Eddie "B" House, haha.

  13. Man, I'm finally starting to shake my flu blog (a little bit) and my ankle decided to blow up. Between my stuffed up nose, headache, and Vicodin, I'm totally loopy. I feel like writing "Help Me" backwards on my head like Al Snow.

  14. @ Ray

    This is the weekend of health recovery, get rid of that damn bug (friendly but aggressive tone)!

  15. Haha, on G# they posted an article about two of their commenters who claimed to play games, 50+ hours a week. I swear I've seen the chick nude on /B/ before.

  16. @ Sandrock

    Lol I just read that as well. I seriously used to play games for 6hours on a work day after work and on the weekends, forget about it! I would barley eat, piss, or sleep. I would keep hitting my vaporizer and get in the zone for at least 24 hrs total in a weekend. Fun but sad times, I had no life and plenty of real friends but at that time in my life I enjoyed the a lot games more.

  17. DLC.

    It's a double-edged sword. It's the kind of good idea on paper that a politician would take and turn into an evil, money-making scheme to line his own pockets. Mr. Padilla mentioned the upside to DLC yesterday; It's convenient, it's priced right and it's just so gosh-darned instant gratification friendly. On paper, DLC looks great. Developers can continue supporting the game and its community by generating more content after the game is released. In real life (and in the hands of Bobby Kocklick and EA) DLC has taken a much more sinister turn.

    DLC would allow a developer or publisher to "piecemeal" a game out by chopping up what would be an already finished game into pieces that would total more than the average retail price of the game. How many of us abhor Day 1 DLC? This is basically something a developer (or publisher) left or took out of a game (or locked in a game) that is not accessible after buying the game at full price, but only later after you pay an additional fee for a code or whatever to unlock that item, map, character, etc. The counter argument to this is, "Well, some of those little DLC items that don't really alter the gameplay are just little incentives to get people to buy the game new or pre-order. There is nothing wrong with giving customers an incentive to buy a game new." True, there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, I have a Halo 3 Spartan helmet to prove that argument. Others have real, working night vision goggles and Baterangs. The problem is when they give you in-game items that change the game in some way. For example, the horse armor in Oblivion IV was just a cosmetic change, but what about Splinter Cell: Conviction's shotgun? An in-game weapon can definitely be a game-changer. Today it may not seem like a big deal, but tomorrow it may be armor, or a space ship or something that you will consider drastic. The point is; Where do you draw the line? How would you feel if you bought a game for $60 and then you later learned that the developer had other levels of the game that they purposely left out so they could sell them later as DLC? If the makers of a game have already created something for the game, it should be included in the new, retail price of that game an not be sold to you after you buy the game. That is not to say that a developer can't make a few map packs for a game months after it comes out and they see that the game is popular and can justify the cost to make that extra DLC.

    Also note, back in the day, developers would put in unlockable items or characters in the game so that when you accomplished something, you get an in-game reward. Just look at Super Smash Bros. Today, it is more likely (via PSN and XBL) that those former in-game rewards will come out as DLC with a price. Just imagine if GoldenEye came out today. The unlockable multiplayer maps and characters would probably be $5 each while the golden gun and other weapons would probably by $10 each. I paid $50 for the whole game back in the late 90's and I got what I paid for. Today, you could spend upwards of $70 or $80 to get that same "whole" game.

    This aspect also makes it harder for your to sell or trade your game. If I bought Modern Warfare 2 with all of the DLC and add-ons, I can only sell the base game and not the $30 worth of other crap that I bought because of the game. That's why the GOTY versions are so much better. I can purchase the whole game and sell the whole game and not get stuck with an in-game item of a game that I've already sold.

    I could actually keep going with this, but let me just conclude that the cons outweigh the pros for me when it comes to DLC. I want to send a message to developers and publishers alike that I will not buy a piece of their game one item at a time, no matter what the cost. You either include the all the current digital content in the game (accessible to all), or create something new and release it for everyone to buy after the games' popularity has warranted such action. If you want to incentivize pre-orders or new purchases, stick to real world items or discounts.


    P.S.- I also hate those little, whinny, annoying brats online screaming and yelling.

  18. @ Sandrock;

    I guess people have more time to play games now since they don't have a pesky job to take up their time.


  19. I like how BioWare handles the DLC for Dragon Age and Mass Effect. I like that it offered "free" DLC to people that bought the game new. To me, this is a much better method than the $10 solution.

    – Anyone else think Bud Selig totally dropped the ball by not awarding Galarraga a perfect game? It would have made life a lot easier for Jim Joyce too.

    – CM Punk's mask cracks me up.

  20. Selig is worst commissioner is sports, narrowly edging out Gary Betman.

  21. – BioWare may be handling DLC better than some other companies, but that's not saying much. Instead of screwing over the person who made the initial purchase (as a ranted about above), they screw over the used buyer and the resale value of the game. I believe their overall strategy is to tie as much of the game as possible to your console so that selling the game would be as worthless as possible to a second-hand buyer. I know it doesn't seem so bad now, but if we continue to support this model, it WILL get progressively worse up to the point where a game you bought becomes unsellable. I know some people could care less, but as an empowered consumer, I frown upon any company that would purposely destroy the resale value of any item I buy from them. If I buy a Camary, Toyota doesn't make me keep the steering wheel, CD Player and rear view mirrors when I go to sell it, so why should you accept that from BioWare?

    – Bud Selig CAN'T (actually, he can, but he won't) give Galarraga a perfect game because of the politics involved. It's just not that simple. It really, really sucks and I would love for Galarraga to be awarded the perfect game, but remember, baseball is an imperfect sport and at the end of the day it's a TEAM sport and the Tigers won. That's really all that matters, not personal achievements. Galarraga's true victory came in the way he acted towards Jim Joyce afterwards. That kind of public grace and dignity is a rare spectacle in today's day and age.

    – WTF is CM Punk?


  22. @ Smartguy;

    You can't buy a beer? What are you, 19 or just really, really poor?


  23. @Iceman I don't mind BioWare's approach. It's trying to encourage people to buy new and its solution is much friendly than the $10 garbage. From its standpoint, it doesn't make money on used-game sales, but it can make money from DLC. Giving people that buy new free DLC and charging people that buy used for the same DLC is much better than something like Online Pass. Of course it helps that BioWare makes quality DLC. A lot of the stuff out there is garbage.

  24. @iceman

    eww…i should have fleshed that out some. I'd buy YOU a beer if I could. As in proximity lol.

  25. @ray

    selig couldnt go back and change it, thats just baseball.. i wish he would have given cabrera an error though, so at least hed have a no hitter

    @john wooden

    RIP man, one of the classiest human beings on this planet…he had a good run though

    he was 17 when the '27 yankees were playing…not too many people left who can say that

  26. @thundercracker He's the commissioner. If he wanted to be progressive, he could have changed it. It would have been the best thing for the game. It sucks the most for Jim Joyce.

  27. ray, i agree with you, but if changed it, there would have been a sh*tstorm kicked up by every baseball purist that has ever lived

    its like the pete rose thing, dude BELONGS in the hall of fame…but selig isnt willing to deviate from tradition, so rose will never get in.

    Same with Joe Jackson, that guy never threw a game in his life…baseball purists are dinosaurs, but they are the ones who are in charge, and whos opinion's matter

  28. @thundercracker

    I agree with you. It's the tradition of "what's done is done". I think if they keep that stance then Bonds goes to the hall w/o an * by his name….same with McGwire (if he makes it now) and Clemens.

    1. Selig had an opportunity to improve the game and introduce another level of instant replay that few would have objected to. Galarraga actually comes out of this more famous. Selig looks like a job. Joyce will be haunted for the rest of his career and his family is already taking crap for his call.

  29. @ray

    preaching to the choir man

    like i said, i agree with you…but if you ask ANY former player what should have been done, they would say that Selig should have left it alone…this will definitely lead to another level instant replay, thatll be the legacy of armando gallaraga

    1. It depends on how old the former players are. Several players that retired within the last ten years think Selig should have changed the result to a perfect game.

  30. Ray Allen had a brilliant first half. Hopefully the Celtics can continue to stick it to the Lakers…though Kobe the Rapist closed out the quarter nicely.

  31. @Ray

    I am pulling for the Lakers since the Celts put the Magic out.

    Some or should I say most of those calls were garbage calls. Hard not to scrutinize NBA refs now a days lol.

Comments are closed.